The government has begun updating the General Radioactive Waste Plan, the long‑term roadmap for managing waste, dismantling nuclear power plants, and estimating costs. The Ministry of Ecological Transition presents two paths for handling Spain’s nuclear waste over the next six decades: creating a single central cemetery for all radioactive waste or establishing seven temporary warehouses, one at each operating plant.
Enresa, the public company responsible for overseeing nuclear waste management, argues that a single national cemetery is the most advantageous option across economic, environmental, and social dimensions. This view is also supported by the electricity companies that run the nuclear plants.
“The best economic, environmental, and social solution is a central temporary warehouse,” stated José Luis Navarro, president of Enresa, during an informative breakfast at the New Economic Forum. “And placing the ATC in a nuclear-rich environment would be ideal—near an existing plant.”
The challenge lies in building social, political, and institutional consensus and addressing residents’ concerns about living near nuclear waste. Navarro noted that an ATC near a populated area is not feasible if communities resist. He highlighted that some municipalities have shown willingness to host an installation if a fair compromise is reached. Reaching consensus requires navigating the intergovernmental dynamics, including reservations or opposition from autonomous communities.
Navarro argued that this is ultimately a state matter and should be decided at the national level. If a unified national vision cannot be reached, Spain might end up with seven warehouses. Yet he stressed that both a single central cemetery and seven decentralized warehouses would be equally safe options. The government has kept both scenarios on the table to pursue broad consensus.
2.1 billion difference
The objective is to reconcile social, political, and energy sector perspectives, keeping both options viable: a single cemetery (central temporary warehouse) to be ready by 2030, or a warehouse per plant (decentralized temporary warehouses). Building seven warehouses would total about 2,100 million euros, according to Enresa’s estimates. A public consultation on the draft PGRR is now underway to solicit input from stakeholders and citizens.
Cost estimates for dismantling all reactors and managing the waste long term run to about 24,435 million euros if a central cemetery is built, or 26,560 million euros if seven separate warehouses are chosen. These amounts are to be funded by operators through a dedicated waste management fund collected via nuclear production rates and material handling charges.
Industry players, including major utilities and related firms, continue to push for a single national waste repository and to have a say in its location. They argue that the project should be sited near the deep geological repository that would permanently isolate the waste, with the government aiming for it to be operation-ready around 2073. Enresa has presented an initial plan that favored a central facility in 2020, with a target operation by 2028—an objective that proved unattainable. At that time, the projected century-long waste management cost stood around 23,044 million euros, with room left for alternative site options.
Spain faces a difficult choice about where to store waste for the long term, as current facilities face delays. Enresa emphasizes moving forward with concrete solutions rather than hypothetical ones. The government has engaged with major electricity companies in a phased closure program for reactors, projecting a gradual shutdown between 2027 and 2035 that would culminate in the end of Spain’s nuclear generation. Utilities involved include Iberdrola, Endesa, Naturgy, and EDP.
Villar de Cañas project
Under the administration of Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, the Villar de Cañas site in Cuenca faced a halt, with authorities signaling a pause rather than a restart. If the decision favors a single central repository, the manager would need to identify a new location. Persistent challenges and rising costs, compounded by doubts about site suitability, have complicated the project. Civil engineers and safety assessments have warned about geotechnical issues in Villar de Cañas.
The construction of a temporary nuclear waste facility has fallen behind schedule. The original plan anticipated completion by 2018, but more than a decade later the project has not advanced to completion. The local council remains open to hosting an ATC for all Spain’s waste, while the regional government has expressed firm opposition to the project.
Whether the ATC would be built near existing facilities or at another suitable site, the discussion continues. The focus remains on delivering a practical, safe, and socially acceptable solution that can serve Spain’s energy needs while addressing public concerns about long‑term nuclear waste management.
Related posts:
Revised Plan for Spain’s Nuclear Waste Management and Rate Implications Revised Path for Spain’s Nuclear Waste Management and Rate Impacts The PGRR Debate: Costs, Closures, and the Future of Spain’s Nuclear Waste Plan Enresa’s Investment Strategy for the Radioactive Waste Fund: A Look at Consultancy Needs and Diversification Spain’s Nuclear Waste Plan and its Impact on Power Rates Government plan for seven nuclear waste sites sparks industry debate and rising costs Spain’s General Plan for Radioactive Waste: timelines, sites, and social consensus Rewriting of Nuclear Tax Debate and Storage Plan in the US/Canada Context The Nuclear Waste Plan: Central Cemetery or Regional Warehouses Fight Over Nuclear Waste Fees Shapes Spain’s Energy Tax Debate El Cabril: Spain’s nuclear waste saga and its future Government Reverses Course on Nuclear Waste Tax Increase